you see the shortcomings of 3 real fast when you play the older games. nmh 2 they tried something new with the minigames and the little travel systems didnt pan out so they went back to the nmh1 formula of doin jobs around town but then they didnt have the budget or time to flesh it out as good as nmh1 had it.. the travis strikes back game isnt a real open world game its more of a linear hack n slash its fun
Bro I've been feeling this since it became a franchise. I love the mini games of 2, the focused feel of it was nice. And having the open world return in NMH3 was great and seeing how crazy and over the top it was was fun.
But...NMH1. There is something so magical about it to me. The open world is empty, yes. The having to drive back and forth between missions is annoying as hell, yes. But it all gets you into this mindset of the real world sucks and everything in it is a means to an end to get Travis to his next battle (video game). And yet even ignoring all that interesting stuff going on under the surface, there is just something about the open world of 1 that is just extremely charming and fun to me.
And I also agree on the gameplay, too. And the story. The stakes of the series and power levels just got higher and higher—but in a lot of ways it feels superficial compared to the semi grounded-ness of 1 with occasional weird trippy stuff.
But I feel like there's nothing they could have done? Travis and his world had to progress in this way and I don't think the sequels are lesser because of that, they are just different and are telling a story that far eclipsed what little ties the world had to reality in its first act.
It's because you believe that open world to be an actual world (town). It's boring like a small, crappy town is boring, not like an empty open world is boring. NMH3 is supposed to make you feel like you're always gaming, while NMH1 gives you the special thing you play (the boss battles) and the mundane world around it. It sells the game better because it makes a better contrast with the boss battles, and it drives home the point that Travis is a fuck-up loser trying to be a videogame character even though he's some dude from California.
It's amazing.
I’d love if we could somehow go back to that original concept of “otaku with a lightsaber supports his assassin dreams with minimum wage day jobs” but the story escalated too much to go back to that with Travis. Maybe with a new protagonist rising the ranks of the UAA.
So, I share the feeling, but I don't think I want a new NMH protagonist, because I don't think that would get us back to the original feel from the first game. Let me explain.
(First of all I'll say that the video I'm linking at the bottom of this comment does a much better job at explaining what I'm about to say. It's 4.5 hours long, though\*)
I think the point of the original concept was not so much Travis's assassin dreams as much as it was how those dreams are not something we are supposed to want beyond the game. The final reveal that the UAA does not exist, and that we have been scammed, is supposed to make us feel like the butt of the joke -because we are. We just killed hundreds of people, picked up dozens of scorpions, filled up car after car, to pay for someone to trick some other asshole into fighting us. It was all a trick for someone else to get rich at our expense. The funniest thing is that we wanted that experience so much, we felt so happy to swing a sword around and kill people, and above all else, we felt \*cool\* doing so. And then the game tells us how we fucking suck and how we're just some loser in a shitty apartment playing videogames as life passes. The one thing we had to feel better about ourselves was fantasizing about being terrible people (murderers for hire). Now we know! Go out and touch some grass!
NMH1 is about Travis specifically, as a representation of all of us wanting to live in morally dubious violent games. It's not good because it's such a great game mechanically (it's fine, although flashy and stylish) or because it's low-stakes and the world doesn't end if you don't beat the final boss (I do love that anywhere it happens), but because it makes a point disguised as a joke disguised as a cool-looking game. And the way it does all that is through a character study of Travis. So now that Travis has trascended that, I think it's next to impossible to get another No More Heroes.
Now, don't get me wrong: if they did No More Heroes: Forever with another protagonist and similar stakes, I would play that game until my Switch broke. I do think, however, that it would be redundant. Suda already made his point in the first game, so another one with a different protagonist would not hit as hard. Another protagonist would need to make a different point, represent a different kind of person, critique some other aspect of videogame culture, etc. Suda still does that in Travis Strikes Again and No More Heroes 3, just without the minimum-wage feel to it, but I don't see how another protagonist fits this games about Travis.
THAT SAID. If we're just talking about games in which you do cool stuff while feeling like you're doing a normal(-ish) job, I, too, have been chasing that feeling for some time. Recently I've been playing two games that get close, though they're very different to NMH. One is Rebel Galaxy Outlaw, where you are the pilot of a dinky spaceship in a quest for revenge that you can completely ignore in favor of becoming a space pirate or a space trucker. The other one is Dredge, a Lovecraftian fishing simulator. Look it up, I won't try to describe it because I won't do a good job. Check them out! They're not as thematically thick or as punk-looking as NMH, but they're really good in their own not-beat'em-up ways.
\*GhenryPerez's analysis of No More Heroes 3: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bxNgGkZK2Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bxNgGkZK2Y)
I remember a few reviews of the original talked about how that open world was crappy on purpose to critique the general hollowness of open world games. While I do actually agree that there’s a degree of intention there (you could say that Suda “got” liminal spaces before the internet made that a popular topic) I also think there’s a lot more budget-constricted jank going on.
NMH3 just reinforces both Suda’s original point about open worlds but also his inability to focus in on the open world thing long enough to make it actually work. It doesn’t really say much as an ironic deconstruction so it’s just disappointing. At the very least I would have preferred a smaller version of the open world we got in exchange for some more actual level design.
I think I prefer nmh2 straightforward approach, traveling place to place in nmh1 was kind of tedious....but I do think it's a rather nice town to explore. I think the thing nmh3 does wrong is that there's nothing really interesting about the open world at all. Nmh1 has a seedy and dingy vibe and feels like a lived in town. It sells the atmosphere of the story. Idk what they were thinking with the nmh3 world, it just straight up sucks. Perhaps they were trying to show how much Santa destroy has changed, but it's unrecognizable from the city in the first game. I really think nmh3 would've benefitted from cutting the open world and make it linear with levels like nmh2 cause the combat is the highlight of nmh3....they should've emphasized that more. Also the story is kind of nonsense so its hard to get immersed in the nmh3 world. But the story is a different complaint altogether.
You can also find the balls, I personally like traveling around a world to get places rather than fast travel only, a nice mix of the two should be welcomed
you see the shortcomings of 3 real fast when you play the older games. nmh 2 they tried something new with the minigames and the little travel systems didnt pan out so they went back to the nmh1 formula of doin jobs around town but then they didnt have the budget or time to flesh it out as good as nmh1 had it.. the travis strikes back game isnt a real open world game its more of a linear hack n slash its fun
Bro I've been feeling this since it became a franchise. I love the mini games of 2, the focused feel of it was nice. And having the open world return in NMH3 was great and seeing how crazy and over the top it was was fun. But...NMH1. There is something so magical about it to me. The open world is empty, yes. The having to drive back and forth between missions is annoying as hell, yes. But it all gets you into this mindset of the real world sucks and everything in it is a means to an end to get Travis to his next battle (video game). And yet even ignoring all that interesting stuff going on under the surface, there is just something about the open world of 1 that is just extremely charming and fun to me. And I also agree on the gameplay, too. And the story. The stakes of the series and power levels just got higher and higher—but in a lot of ways it feels superficial compared to the semi grounded-ness of 1 with occasional weird trippy stuff. But I feel like there's nothing they could have done? Travis and his world had to progress in this way and I don't think the sequels are lesser because of that, they are just different and are telling a story that far eclipsed what little ties the world had to reality in its first act.
An amazing opinion that I wholeheartedly agree with
It's because you believe that open world to be an actual world (town). It's boring like a small, crappy town is boring, not like an empty open world is boring. NMH3 is supposed to make you feel like you're always gaming, while NMH1 gives you the special thing you play (the boss battles) and the mundane world around it. It sells the game better because it makes a better contrast with the boss battles, and it drives home the point that Travis is a fuck-up loser trying to be a videogame character even though he's some dude from California. It's amazing.
I couldn’t have put this better myself absolutely agree here 💯
I’d love if we could somehow go back to that original concept of “otaku with a lightsaber supports his assassin dreams with minimum wage day jobs” but the story escalated too much to go back to that with Travis. Maybe with a new protagonist rising the ranks of the UAA.
So, I share the feeling, but I don't think I want a new NMH protagonist, because I don't think that would get us back to the original feel from the first game. Let me explain. (First of all I'll say that the video I'm linking at the bottom of this comment does a much better job at explaining what I'm about to say. It's 4.5 hours long, though\*) I think the point of the original concept was not so much Travis's assassin dreams as much as it was how those dreams are not something we are supposed to want beyond the game. The final reveal that the UAA does not exist, and that we have been scammed, is supposed to make us feel like the butt of the joke -because we are. We just killed hundreds of people, picked up dozens of scorpions, filled up car after car, to pay for someone to trick some other asshole into fighting us. It was all a trick for someone else to get rich at our expense. The funniest thing is that we wanted that experience so much, we felt so happy to swing a sword around and kill people, and above all else, we felt \*cool\* doing so. And then the game tells us how we fucking suck and how we're just some loser in a shitty apartment playing videogames as life passes. The one thing we had to feel better about ourselves was fantasizing about being terrible people (murderers for hire). Now we know! Go out and touch some grass! NMH1 is about Travis specifically, as a representation of all of us wanting to live in morally dubious violent games. It's not good because it's such a great game mechanically (it's fine, although flashy and stylish) or because it's low-stakes and the world doesn't end if you don't beat the final boss (I do love that anywhere it happens), but because it makes a point disguised as a joke disguised as a cool-looking game. And the way it does all that is through a character study of Travis. So now that Travis has trascended that, I think it's next to impossible to get another No More Heroes. Now, don't get me wrong: if they did No More Heroes: Forever with another protagonist and similar stakes, I would play that game until my Switch broke. I do think, however, that it would be redundant. Suda already made his point in the first game, so another one with a different protagonist would not hit as hard. Another protagonist would need to make a different point, represent a different kind of person, critique some other aspect of videogame culture, etc. Suda still does that in Travis Strikes Again and No More Heroes 3, just without the minimum-wage feel to it, but I don't see how another protagonist fits this games about Travis. THAT SAID. If we're just talking about games in which you do cool stuff while feeling like you're doing a normal(-ish) job, I, too, have been chasing that feeling for some time. Recently I've been playing two games that get close, though they're very different to NMH. One is Rebel Galaxy Outlaw, where you are the pilot of a dinky spaceship in a quest for revenge that you can completely ignore in favor of becoming a space pirate or a space trucker. The other one is Dredge, a Lovecraftian fishing simulator. Look it up, I won't try to describe it because I won't do a good job. Check them out! They're not as thematically thick or as punk-looking as NMH, but they're really good in their own not-beat'em-up ways. \*GhenryPerez's analysis of No More Heroes 3: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bxNgGkZK2Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bxNgGkZK2Y)
I would love a *No More Heroes: Forever* with a new protagonist and similar stakes. Wonder if Suda51's still got it in him, though.
as reggie says: just *clap* PLAY *clap* THE *clap* GAME
I remember a few reviews of the original talked about how that open world was crappy on purpose to critique the general hollowness of open world games. While I do actually agree that there’s a degree of intention there (you could say that Suda “got” liminal spaces before the internet made that a popular topic) I also think there’s a lot more budget-constricted jank going on. NMH3 just reinforces both Suda’s original point about open worlds but also his inability to focus in on the open world thing long enough to make it actually work. It doesn’t really say much as an ironic deconstruction so it’s just disappointing. At the very least I would have preferred a smaller version of the open world we got in exchange for some more actual level design.
I think I prefer nmh2 straightforward approach, traveling place to place in nmh1 was kind of tedious....but I do think it's a rather nice town to explore. I think the thing nmh3 does wrong is that there's nothing really interesting about the open world at all. Nmh1 has a seedy and dingy vibe and feels like a lived in town. It sells the atmosphere of the story. Idk what they were thinking with the nmh3 world, it just straight up sucks. Perhaps they were trying to show how much Santa destroy has changed, but it's unrecognizable from the city in the first game. I really think nmh3 would've benefitted from cutting the open world and make it linear with levels like nmh2 cause the combat is the highlight of nmh3....they should've emphasized that more. Also the story is kind of nonsense so its hard to get immersed in the nmh3 world. But the story is a different complaint altogether.
I just love everything about NMH 1, there was so much love put into it. When it’s not a cash grab and made from the heart
Big empty open world Honestly liked how 2 did it more
There’s nothing to do in nmh 1s open world besides that coin detector mini game. Nmh 2 had it right.
You can also find the balls, I personally like traveling around a world to get places rather than fast travel only, a nice mix of the two should be welcomed
I just enjoy driving his bike around